MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179240921 · doi:10.1177/0840470415604771

The emergence of precision therapeutics

2015· review· en· W2179240921 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jim Slater, Laura Shields, Ray J. Racette, Don Juzwishin, Max J. Coppes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiotechnology and Related Fields
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesCanada Auto WorkersRoche (Canada)Shared Health
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPrecision medicineTransformative learningTerminologyHealth carePersonalized medicineHealthcare systemPromotion (chess)MedicinePublic relationsEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePsychologyBioinformaticsEngineeringPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the era of personalized and precision medicine, the approach to healthcare is quickly changing. Genetic and other molecular information are being increasingly demanded by clinicians and expected by patients for prevention, screening, diagnosis, prognosis, health promotion, and treatment of an increasing number of conditions. As a result of these developments, Canadian health leaders must understand and be prepared to lead the necessary changes associated with these disruptive technologies. This article focuses on precision therapeutics but also provides background on the concepts and terminology related to personalized and precision medicine and explores Canadian health leadership and system issues that may pose barriers to their implementation. The article is intended to inspire, educate, and mobilize Canadian health leaders to initiate dialogue around the transformative changes necessary to ready the healthcare system to realize the benefits of precision therapeutics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicBiotechnology and Related FieldsFrench-language works237,207